The petitioner is knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition being aggrieved by the report of the District Caste Verification Committee (for short ‘DCVC’) dated 27-10-2021 and has sought consequential direction to confirm the caste certificate issued to him by the Competent Authority on 03-04-2012 as legal and valid.
2. Facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be a resident of Maraheru Kothur Village and claims to be belonging to ‘Budaga Jangama’ caste. It is the further averment that custom and religious practices that the petitioner follows and professes are that of Budaga Jangama caste. The petitioner claims that his parents and his fore-fathers also belonged to Budaga Jangama caste. Owing to their illiteracy and ignorance the school authorities had indicated the caste of the petitioner as belonging to ‘Byragi’, looking at the attire of his parents. In the year 2008 the petitioner applies for grant of a caste certificate in his favour depicting him to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste before the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The Tahsildar rejects the application of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 04-04-2008 on the ground that the petitioner cannot belong to Budaga Jangama caste as there were no people of Budaga Jangama caste in Kolar District. This is challenged before the DCVC by filing an appeal in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and the Rules framed thereunder namely the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short).
3. The DCVC rejects the appeal filed by the petitioner in terms of its order dated 12-04-2008 for want of any supporting material to declare the petitioner to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. The petitioner claims to have collected sufficient material in support of his case for issuance of a caste certificate and submits a fresh application to the Tahsildar for issuance of such certificate. The Tahsildar forwards the application submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner on 16-04-2010 seeking a clarification for issuance of caste certificate in favour of the petitioner as sought by him to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. The Deputy Commissioner on 01-07-2010 directs the Tahsildar to issue the caste certificate as sought by the petitioner, without any delay. The Tahsildar then seeks clarification with regard to wrong caste entries in the school records of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter further directs issuance of caste certificate in favour of the petitioner on 17-07-2010. The Tahsildar then issues the caste certificate on 26-11-2010 depicting the petitioner to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste.
4. It is the averment in the petition that the petitioner then comes to know that the entire file relating to the petitioner being declared to be a Budaga Jangama caste while issuing caste certificate vanished from the office of the Tahsildar. Owing to such shock and surprise, the petitioner makes a fresh application before the Deputy Commissioner on 02-01-2012 for issuance of a caste certificate declaring him to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. The Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of the application, refers the matter to the Tahsildar for necessary action. It is claimed that the Tahsildar after receipt of the communication from the Deputy Commissioner drew up a spot mahazar and then concludes that the petitioner belongs to Budaga Jangama caste and issues a caste certificate depicting him to be belonging to “Budaga Jangama” caste.
5. The petitioner then owing to necessity submits an application under the Right to Information Act before the Tahsildar seeking issuance of certified copy of an order dated 27-03-2012 which according to the petitioner was a detailed order passed by the Tahsildar declaring the petitioner as belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. The Tahsildar on the said application issues an endorsement on 14-03-2013 stating that the office of the Tahsildar, Mulbagal Taluk has not issued a caste certificate depicting the petitioner to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. This leads the petitioner to this Court in Writ Petition No.17122 of 2013. The petitioner by then had contested the elections from Mulbagal constituency of Kolar District on the strength of the caste certificate that was allegedly issued by the Tahsildar on 03-04-2012 and won the election.
6. Writ petitions come to be filed by rival candidates in Writ Petition Nos.20025 of 2013 and 20026 of 2013 praying action to be initiated against the present petitioner for his acts of misuse and abuse of claiming to be a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and contesting from 145 Mulbagal Assembly (SC) Constituency in Kolar District on the basis of a false caste certificate. Another writ petition was filed in Writ Petition No.24119 of 2013 by a voter of the constituency in which the petitioner had been elected seeking a writ in the nature of quo warranto to stop the petitioner from functioning as a legislator from the aforesaid constituency. All these three petitions were taken up together and disposed of by an order dated 18-09-2013 keeping all the issues open and permitting challenge to be laid in an appropriately brought up election petition and also reserving to the petitioners to urge all their grounds and contentions in the election petition. An election petition was filed on 08-05-2013 in Election Petition No.4 of 2013 before this Court. The Election Petition was allowed in terms of the order of this Court on 25-04-2018 holding that the petitioner did not belong to Budaga Jangama caste and he did belong to Byragi caste which comes under other backward class. The petitioner calls the said order in question as his election had been set aside before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4533 of 2018.
7. The Apex Court in terms of its order dated 30-01-2020 directed the 2nd respondent to submit a report afresh with regard to the caste status of the petitioner whether he belongs to Budaga Jangama caste or Byragi caste. The DCVC upon directions of the Apex Court conducts a detailed inquiry and passes an order holding that the petitioner does not belong to Budaga Jangama caste but belongs to Byragi caste and in view of the said position the petitioner had failed to prove that he belongs to Budaga Jangama caste and the Committee declares that the petitioner is not eligible for any benefit claiming to be a Scheduled Caste. This report of the DCVC dated 27-10-2021 was placed before the Apex Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No.4533 of 2018. The Apex Court considering that a report has now emerged against the petitioner from the hands of the DCVC reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge the findings of the Committee in terms of its report before this Court. While so directing the Apex Court also observes that while considering the challenge this Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in the order impugned before the Apex Court. It is in that light, the present petition is preferred calling in question the order and the proceedings of the DCVC in terms of its report dated 27-10-2021.
8. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri C. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6, Sri Prakash M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, Sri N.S. Sheshadri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8, Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 9 and 22, Sri K.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 10, 14 to 21, 23 to 27 and Sri M.S.B Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONER’S:
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Tahsildar initially had issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner in the year 2012. The caste certificate did not emerge from thin air. It was after conduct of a detailed enquiry pursuant to the directions of the Deputy Commissioner and after seeking all clarifications the caste certificate was issued. The petitioner on the strength valid caste certificate had contested the elections to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. When the petitioner comes to know that there was some problem in the office of the Tahsildar with regard to a detailed order being passed, applies under the Right to Information Act seeking detailed order from the Tahsildar. It is then an endorsement is issued stating that the Tahsildar has never issued any caste certificate to the petitioner as belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. It is from here the problem crops up.
9.1. It is the emphatic submission of the learned senior counsel that political opponents of the petitioner have generated the litigation against the petitioner only to defeat the right of an elected representative being a Scheduled Caste. Insofar as the report of the DCVC dated 27-10-2021 is concerned it is his emphatic submission that the DCVC has not looked into any aspect of the matter and also ignores the Kolar Gazetteer issued in the year 1939 which clearly depicts the presence or existence of people belonging to Budaga Jangama caste in Kolar District. The DCVC has gone completely by its own records ignoring the evidence of persons who deposed before the Committee wherein it was clearly an evidence in favour of the petitioner. He would contend that the writ petition be allowed, the report be quashed and the petitioner be declared to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:
10. The learned counsel representing the State/ respondents 1 to 6, Sri C. Jagadish, would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned senior counsel by seeking to contend that the petitioner had applied for a caste certificate for the first time in his life time in the year 2008. The Tahsildar had rightly rejected the caste certificate which was not challenged by the petitioner before any judicial or quasi judicial fora. Having left the said endorsement unchallenged again claims to have applied for a certificate and claims to have obtained the same from the Tahsildar on 03-04- 2012. The Tahsildar, on perusal of the records, found that there was no such caste certificate issued by the then Tahsildar of his office. By then the petitioner had contested the elections as a Scheduled Caste candidate - Budaga Jangama and had won from Mulbagal constituency – Constituency No.145.
10.1. It is then the rejection crops up by a detailed order in the election petition and in the election petition the election of the petitioner was set aside. The Apex Court though did not upturn the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in the election petition, but directed a fresh report to be obtained from the office of the DCVC. The DCVC then for over 10 months held a detailed enquiry, verified plethora of documents and found that the petitioner did not belong to Budaga Jangama caste. Therefore, the finding in the election petition and in the proceedings before the DCVC afresh, all would lead to an unmistakable conclusion that the petitioner had played fraud by generating a false caste certificate and contesting the election as a Scheduled Caste candidate. He would submit that the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
11. In reply to the said submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Apex Court has clearly directed that the order impugned before it i.e., the order passed in the election petition – E.P.No.4 of 2013 should not influence the present petition. Therefore, none of the findings therein should even be looked into and the matter has to be considered afresh. He would then take this Court to plethora of documents to contend that the petitioner does belong to Budaga Jangama caste and the Kolar Gazetteer was the primary evidence to demonstrate that people of such caste were existing in Kolar District from time immemorial.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS 9 AND 22:
12. The learned senior counsel representing respondents 9 and 22, Smt.Pramila Nesargi, would toe the lines of the learned counsel Sri C. Jagadish and seeks to contend that there are no documents in favour of the petitioner to demonstrate that he belongs to Budaga Jangama caste. All the witnesses who have deposed before the DCVC in favour of the petitioner are all his family persons. There is no independent witness who came forward and deposed before the Committee that the petitioner or his family members belonged to Budaga Jangama caste. The learned senior counsel would submit that the proceedings and the order of the DCVC are after consideration of all the relevant material and, therefore, the petition has to be dismissed.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent is sailing with the petitioner as 8th respondent is the brother of the petitioner and takes this Court to his statement of objections seeking to contend that they belong to Budaga Jangama caste and the illiteracy or ignorance of law is the sole reason for the family of the petitioner not taking any benefit till the year 2008. He would otherwise toe the lines of the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner.
14. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for consideration is, whether the order of the DCVC call for any interference.
CONSIDERATION:
15. Though the aforesaid facts, dates and link in the chain of events are a matter of record, it would require a little amplification and are therefore, require reiteration, but before embarking upon consideration of respective submissions, I deem it appropriate to notice the genesis of Budaga Jangama caste, to be a Scheduled caste, and its declaration on the nation becoming a Republic.
THE GENESIS OF BUDAGA JANGAMA AS A SCHEDULED CASTE:
16. On 10-08-1950 after coming into force of Constitution of India, a constitutional order/presidential order comes to be issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India viz., Constitution (Schedule Castes) Order 1950. In the erstwhile State of Mysore only six castes were declared to be belonging to Scheduled Castes. The six castes were the following:
"1. Adidravida,
2. Adikarnataka
3. Banjara or Lambani
4. Bhovi
5. Koracha
6. Korama"
The States re-organization happens on November 1st, 1956. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order 1956, comes to be promulgated on 29-10-1956, by the President of India. The Presidential order earlier notified was modified by including “Beda (Budga) Jangam” in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Insofar as the State of Mysore is concerned, certain castes were added in the Districts of Belgaum, Bijapur, Dharwar and Kanara. Specifically the caste ‘Beda (Budaga) Jangam’ was added in the Districts of Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur. The addition is as follows:
“4. Beda (Budga) Jangam”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Budaga Jangama caste as quoted hereinabove was restricted to three Districts of Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur. After about 21 years, Government of India again modified the list in terms of its Notification dated 27-07-1977. What comes about in this notification, is the removal of area restriction, which would mean that the caste Budaga Jangama or Beda Jangama was not restrictable only to three Districts of Gulbarga, Raichur or Bidar. In the said Scheduled Castes list of State of Karnataka, at Sl.No.19 was the caste “Beda Jangam, Budaga Jangam” enlisted. What would emerge from the removal of area restriction is that, if persons belonging to Scheduled Castes i.e., Budaga Jangama were residing earlier in the aforesaid three Districts, if migrated into other Districts for whatever purpose, they should not lose their rights as belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is, therefore, the area restriction was removed in terms of notification dated 27-07-1977. The history with regard to declaration of Budaga Jangama caste as Scheduled Caste, is what is narrated hereinabove.
DECLARATION OF BYRAGI:
17. The other list, in the controversy is required to be noticed. The Government of India has declared list of socially and educationally backward classes other than the Scheduled Castes and Tribes by its order dated 09-06-1960. The said notification at Sl.No.14 depicts a case by name Byragi. It reads as follows:
“14. Devadiga, Moili, Kottari, Badubuduke, Budubudukala, Bhatraju, Gondaliga, Gondali, Gangethinavaru, Jogi, Jogar, Kaniyar, Manigar, Dasari, Pandara, Patkar, Byragi, Dombara, Dommara, Dombari, Garudi, Garudiga, Modikar, Jatti, Katabu, Kolhati, Kolhatgi, Rachevar , Veeramusti, Kalawantula, Koteyar, Sheregar, Male, Vajantri, Balasanthosi, Natuva, Devadasi, Devli, Bandi, Padiyar, Siddis of North Kanara District.”
The Social Welfare Secretariat of Government of Karnataka passes an order on 30-03-2002 depicting the castes belonging to other backward classes other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes making creamy layer applicable to those castes. In the said list in Category-I at clause (e) depicts ‘Byragi’ and it reads as follows:
“(e) Byragi.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid are the names of two castes that forms the fulcrum of the conundrum – one Budaga Jangama, Scheduled Caste and the other Byragi, the other Backward Class. Before considering the test to determine who could be Budaga Jangama or who could be Byragi based upon the documents produced in the petition, I deem it appropriate to consider the applicability of the Government order to the case of the petitioner.
CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER:
THE FIRST ATTEMPT:
18. The petitioner claims himself to be a person belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. Until the year 2008, there was no whisper about Budaga Jangama caste being issued a caste certificate in Kolar District. For the first time, the petitioner applies for a caste certificate before the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The jurisdictional Tahsildar in terms of his endorsement dated 04-04-2008 observes that the petitioner did not belong to Budaga Jangama caste, as the Revenue Inspector of Kasaba Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, had verified all the documents and submitted his report that the petitioner did not belong to the said caste and, therefore, the endorsement comes to be issued. The endorsement reads as follows:
"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content.
"(Emphasis added)
The petitioner chose not to proceed further against the said orders. Thus, the findings of the Tahsildar and the DCVC became final, depicting that the petitioner belongs to Byragi caste.
THE SECOND ATTEMPT:
19. After about 4 years, the petitioner again springs into action. This time applies for a fresh caste certificate before the very Tahsildar who had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of a caste certificate. After receipt of the said application, the petitioner appears to have approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking certain directions to the Tahsildar for issuance of caste certificate. All these led to emergence of a caste certificate on 03-04-2012 depicting the petitioner to be belonging to Budaga Jangama, a scheduled caste. On the strength of the said caste certificate, the petitioner contested the Legislative Assembly Elections of Karnataka from 145 – Mulbagal Assembly constituency as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, emerges victorious and strangely, finds necessity of securing detailed order passed by the Tahsildar, while issuing the caste certificate on 03-04-2012 and by choosing the path of Right to Information Act, applies for the said detailed order. This results in an endorsement dated 14-03-2013 issued by the Tahsildar reading as follows:
"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content.
(Emphasis added)
The fraud that was latent becomes patent. The Tahsildar was categorical that no such caste certificate depicting the petitioner to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste was ever issued by him, and there were no records found in the office of the Tahsildar, with regard to issuance of such caste certificate. This becomes a subject matter of Writ Petition No.17122 of 2013 in which the petitioner challenge the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar on 14-03-2013.
20. The petitioner had by then emerged victorious in the elections and had become a legislator, on the strength of a caste certificate, records of which were nowhere found. Two other writ petitions were filed challenging the candidature of the petitioner – one seeking a direction that the petitioner should not be permitted to function as legislator and the other seeking a writ of quo warranto against the petitioner in W.P.No.20025 of 2013 and W.P.No.20026 of 2013 c/w W.P.No.24119 of 2013. Since all the petitions emerged from one solitary incident of conduct of elections, on the basis of the caste certificate secured, they were taken up together and disposed of by an order dated 18-09-2013 as follows:
“27. From the discussions made with reference to all the three writ petitions, it is clear that this court in these proceedings cannot come to a definite conclusion with regard to the caste status of Sri G.Manjunath in a circumstance that it would have to be decided in the appropriate proceedings viz., an Election Petition. Such decision is due to the fact that the electorate have elected Sri G.Manjunath and if at all it is to be nullified, even if it be on the ground that he does not belong to Scheduled Caste, it can only be done in such proceedings which is permissible in law as in the instant proceedings the validity of caste certificate cannot be extricated from the challenge to the election. Therefore, though at this juncture, I see no reason to declare the endorsement dated 14-03-2013 as unsustainable, neither do I see reason to declare the claim of Sri G.Manjunath in placing reliance on the caste certificate dated 3-04-2012 as valid, but is made subject to proof in the Election petition wherein a challenge is raised in that regard.
28. For all the reasons aforesaid, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition in W.P.No.17122 of 2013, W.P. Nos. 20025-26/2013 and W.P.No.24119/ 2013 are all disposed of leaving all issues open for consideration in the election petition.
(ii) The parties to bear their own costs.”
This Court was of the opinion that all these issues will have to be thrashed out in an election petition. By then, Election Petition in E.P.No.4 of 2013, had been filed against the petitioner by one N. Munianjappa. This Court in terms of its order dated 25-04-2018 allowed the election petition, by holding that the petitioner did not belong to Budaga Jangama caste, but was only a Byragi and therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in contesting the elections under the reserved category was on the face of it, illegal. It was declared that the petitioner belongs to Byragi and had failed to establish that a caste certificate had been issued by the Tahsildar on 03-04-2012. This is called in question before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4533 of 2018 in which the Apex Court initially passed an order on 30-01-2020 which reads as follows:
“The aforesaid committee shall hear the parties and permit them to lead oral and documentary evidence. The enquiry shall be conducted by the Committee according to the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1999. The Committee shall submit its report before this Court within a period of three months from the date of first meeting of the Committee on the issue.”
The Apex Court directed an inquiry to be conducted into the caste status of the petitioner according to the Act by the DCVC and the Committee was directed to submit its report before the Apex Court within three months from the date of its first meeting. In terms of the direction of the Apex Court, the DCVC again went into the exercise of conducting a detailed inquiry into the caste status of the petitioner. This results in a report of the DCVC dated 27-10-2021 holding that the petitioner did not belong to Budaga Jangama caste, but was a Byragi. The report was placed before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in terms of its order dated 19-01-2023, on perusal of the report, disposed of the civil appeal by the following order:
“In view of the order passed by this court on 30.01.2020, the Committee appointed by the State of Karnataka has found that the appellant does not belong to Budaga Jangama which is notified as Scheduled Caste and belongs to Byragi which is notified as Other Backward Class in the State of Karnataka.
We find that it will not be appropriate for us to examine the correctness of the findings of the said Committee directly in this Court.
It will be appropriate that the appellant to take recourse of the remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenges the correctness of the findings of the Committee before the High Court.
We, therefore, dispose of the appeal with liberty to the appellant to challenge the findings of the committee in its report dated 27-10-2021.
It is further made clear that while considering the challenge, the High Court would not be influenced by the observations made in the impugned order.
If such a proceeding is filed before the High Court by the appellant, we request the High Court to decide the same expeditiously.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court observes that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the findings of the Committee and disposed of the Civil Appeal reserving such liberty. While saying so, the Apex Court directs that this Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in the election petition supra. It is exercising that liberty, the petitioner has called in question in this petition the report of the DCVC. Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice the relevant observations of the DCVC. The findings of the DCVC qua its germaneness:
“28. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has directed this committee for determination whether the appellant Sri G.Manjunath belongs to “Budaga Jangama” or whether he belongs to “Byragi” caste of other backward class in the State of Karnataka. In the light of the specific directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India now this committee has to determine whether the appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste Budaga Jangama or Backward Class Category-I Byragi community. After hearing the arguments and perusing the records this Committee feels that it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and Rules, 1992. The Act contemplates for issuing the caste certificate under Section 4-A of the Act. Further, under Rule 3- A of the above said Rules prescribes the manner in which, the issuance of Income and Caste certificate has to be followed, which reads as follows:
Issue of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certificate. – (1) Every application for Caste Certificate of Income and Caste Certificate under Section 4-A shall be in forms A, B or C as may be appropriate accompanied by such documents and other materials in support of the claim.
(2) On receipt of the application, the Tahsildar shall verify the information, documents and such other materials furnished by the appellant and on such verification if he is satisfied with the correctness of the
information, documents and evidence furnished by the appellant, he shall issue Caste Certificate or Income and Caste Certificate in Forms D, E & F F as may be appropriate within two months from the date of the application.
(3) Where the Tahsildar is not satisfied with the correctness of the information, documents or other materials furnished by the appellant he shall then proceed to hold enquiry as follows:
(a) The Tahsildar shall fix the date of enquiry and issue notice to the appellant to appear on the date so fixed along with all documents and other materials which he desires to produce.
(b) During the course of enquiry he shall examine the school records, birth registration certificate if any, and such other relevant records. He shall examine the appellant if he is present and may also examine the parent/guardian of the appellant and any other person who has knowledge of the social status of the appellant and parent/guardian;
This committee is of the opinion that other contents in the same provisions are not necessary to adjudicate the case in hand.
29. It is undisputed fact that the parents of the appellant have not obtained the caste certificate claiming as Budaga Jangama, which is notified as Scheduled Caste from the date, the said caste is included in the Scheduled Caste list. However, it is only the appellant has made an application before the Tahsildar, Mulbagal. The Tahsildar, Mulbagal, after considering the factual report of the revenue inspector, school records and the position in the village taken into account on a categorical finding has rejected the claim of the appellant holding that the appellant belongs to Byragi community and there are no person belonging to Budaga Jangama in Kottur Village. While rejecting the application of the appellant it has not been rejected for want of document as contended by the appellant. In addition to this, the District Caste Verification Committee by an order dated 12-04-2008 after taking note of the claim made by the appellant and also keeping in view the notification dated 7-09-2004 which has been issued under Article 16(4) of the Constitution and also referring to the school records and other relevant documents has arrived at the conclusion and held that the appellant belongs to Byragi community and not Budaga Jangama as claimed by the appellant. Even this fact has not been disputed by the appellant herein, who has arraigned as respondent No.1 in his statement of objections filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in E.P.No.4/2013. In fact, in the Election Petition No.4 of 2013 the Hon’ble High Court has also given the same finding. Further, the judgment relied by the appellant’s counsel in the case of Jabar Singh v. Dinesh and another is of no application to the facts of the case as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that in the said case, juvenile justice (Cadre and protection of Children) Act, 2000 Section 49 and Section 7A and other provisions of the said Act has been dealt, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has no occasion to deliberate the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tries and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990 and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, it has no relevance to the facts of the case in view of the specific provision referred above supra. Accordingly the committee is of the opinion that the contention canvassed by the appellant is not acceptable.
30. With regard to the caste status of the appellant, this Committee feels that it would be necessary to refer to sub- Section (5) of Section 4A of the Act, which reads as follows:
“The burden of proving that the candidate or his parents or guardian belongs to Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe shall be on the applicant.”
In the guise of the above provision, this committee after perusing the records made available before this Committee and also the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel, the appellant has stated that his parents were illiterate and they have not obtained the caste certificate as Budaga Jangama. However, at the time of admitting the appellant to the school because of their illiteracy, the caste of the appellant is mentioned as Byragi. It is not in dispute that at an undisputed point of time, in the Transfer Certificate of the appellant and his relatives Gangireddy their caste is mentioned as Byragi. Further, at column No.9 of the Transfer Certificate, whether the candidate belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it is mentioned as Backward Tribe. Apart from this, the students studied at Nehru Kenady Pre-University College, Mulbagal, Kolar District in secondary school section about 50 names are furnished by the Deputy Principal, Government Pre- University College, Mulbagal wherein the caste of all the 15 students, including the appellant and the respondent No.2 – Venkataraman, their caste is mentioned as Byragi from Kottur Village, Mulbagal Taluk.
31. Apart from the above facts,it is not in dispute that Gangireddy, S/o lae Anjinappa and the appellant G.Manjunath has filed a civil suit before the Hon’ble Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bulbagal in O.S.No.107 of 2012, though initially a declaration of the caste as Budaga Jangama was sought the same has been amended subsequently for a declaration to the defendant therein to rectify the school records and indicate the caste as Budaga Jangama in place of Byragi. In the said plaint, the appellant herein and the appellant No.2 in the original suit has not stated about the caste certificate for the purpose of election has applied by him. On the other hand, he has averred that the caste certificate is required for employment, as he was an unemployed and searching for a job. Further, in the sale deeds dated 28-09-1988, 4.06.1991, 3-08- 1991, 4-03-1993, 3-01-1994, 29.01.1994, 30-08-1995, 14-11-2000 and 28-09-2001 of one Sri Gangadharaiah father in law of the appellant, Govindu, grand-father of the appellant, Gangireddy and Anjinappa, uncles of the appellant, D.Nagaraj, paternal uncle of the appellant,
Lachiram Grand-father of the appellant, Babaiah, maternal uncle of the appellant, Kullayappa, uncle of the appellant, Chinna Gopalu, uncle of the appellant, their caste is voluntarily given as Byragi and in none of the documents referred supra their caste has been mentioned as Budaga Jangama.
15. During the midst of the enquiry on 31-07-2011, this committee was constituted consisting of Deputy Superintendent of Police, CRE Cell, Joint Director, Department of Social Welfare, Tahsildar, Mulbagal Taluk and Taluk Social Welfare Officer, Mulbagal to submit a joint report regarding the caste status of the appellant. Accordingly, the joint committee has conducted an enquiry visiting the Kottur village and submitted the report to this committee. As per the committee report, it has examined about 7 persons. Out of which, 4 persons have declared that they belong to Budaga Jangama caste. 2 persons belongs to Vokkaliga community, one person belongs to Kuruba community and one person belongs to Scheduled Caste Adi Karnataka community were examined. During the enquiry, all the persons have stated that the customs and mode of their practice. However, they have categorically stated that right from the year 1950, the State Government have made several scheme for the purpose of uplifting the persons belonging to under-privileged to bring them to the mainstream of the society. However, none of the witnesses have stated that they have availed any benefits meant for Scheduled Caste from 1950. Apart from this, they have also stated that under the Budaga Jangama community, their caste is also called as Kondamama, Jangama, Jangala, Sanyasi, Hagalu Veshadari, Byragi and in the school records of their children, their case is entered as Byragi. Further, the witnesses have categorically stated that they do not have a documentary proof to show that prior to obtaining the caste certificate by the appellant herein as Budaga Jangama, their community people in the neither said village nor neighbouring village have obtained Budaga Jangama certificate. The appellant has not placed any material to establish that they belong to Budaga Jangama caste. However, only based on the food habits, customs, traditions, and practices and also costumes their communities they claim as Budaga Jangama Scheduled caste.
33. As per the Notification dated 10-08-1950 only 6 communities were declared as Scheduled caste in the Presidential notification issued in respect of the erstwhile Mysore State. They are as follows:
(1) Adidravida, (2) Adikarnataka, (3) Banjara or Lambani, (4) Bhovi, (5) Koracha and (6) Korama.
There was no Budaga Jangama in the erstwhile State of Mysore. On the other hand, in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, Budaga Jangama/Beda Jangama has been notified as Scheduled Caste. After the State Re-organization Act, 1956, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Modification) Order, 1956 some of the Districts of Hyderabad viz., Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur were part of State of Hyderabad came to be merged in the State of erstwhile Mysore. Since Beda Jangama and Budaga Jangama was notified as Scheduled Caste before merger of some taluks and districts to Mysore State, after merger of the State with Mysore State, their castes were deemed to be declared as Scheduled Castes in the respective area. Thereafter by virtue of Article 341(2) of the Constitution, the Scheduled caste order by Act 108/1976 area restrictions were removed, which came into force with effect from 27-07-1977. On the other hand in all the school records and the sale deeds of the relatives of the appellant till 2001 their caste is mentioned as Byragi, which is notified as Backward Class Category-I. When such being the undisputed facts, as per the records available before this Committee, this Committee feels that the appellant has failed to prove his caste that he belongs to Budaga Jangama as required under sub- Section (5) of Section 4A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990.
34. Regarding the Gazetteer pertaining to the Kolar District relied by the appellant, as rightly pointed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, the editors and the translators are not the expert anthropologist. Further in the said Gazetteer, it has been mentioned that in Mulbagal Taluk of Kolar District their caste are also known as Mala-Sanyasi and Byragi etc. Further, even the relatives of the appellant, the appellant and also the witnesses have stated before the specially constituted committee for submitting the report, they have categorically admitted hat Budaga Jangama community people are also called as Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi. Admittedly, the said communities viz., Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi and Mala-Sanyasis were all classified as Backward Tribes earlier, after Indra Sahney judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the said castes were treated as Backward Class Category-I by the State Government for the purpose of education and appointment under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Even in the Presidential Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India in respect of Scheduled Caste persons in the State of Karnataka at Sl.No.19 it is mentioned that Budaga Jangama, Budga Jangam are notified as Scheduled Caste and there is no synonyms to that community. Under these circumstances, this Committee has no jurisdiction or competence to equate Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi, Hagaluveshadari and Malasanyasi communities as synonyms of Budaga Jangama community as claimed by the appellant herein.
… … … …
CONCLUSION
The committee need to examine the fact of the occupation, habits, rituals, customs and deities of the aforesaid two castes and fact of Kolar Gazetteer states that the persons belonging to ‘Budaga Jangama’ caste are also known by names such as ‘malasanyasi’, ‘bairagi’, etc., in different part of the State of Karnataka.
After careful examination of written/oral arguments made by both sides and committee inspection and interaction in the appellant village the committee come to the following conclusion. In the school records of the appellant his caste has been mentioned as Byragi, but he is claiming that he belongs to Budaga Jangama, on the ground that the customs, food habits and the dress they are wearing, marriage and death ceremonies are conducted like that of Budga Jangama community, which is not considerable. Further, the appellant, his relatives and neighbouring witnesses in the village have categorically stated that
Budaga Jangama are also called Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi, Hagalu Veshadari and Mala Sanyasi as mentioned in Kolar Gazetteer, but appellant had not produced any documentary evidence of h is or his father’s caste as Budaga Jangama.
In view of the above position, this committee is of the view that the appellant failed to prove that he belongs to Budaga Jangama, not eligible for scheduled caste and he belongs to Byragi caste.”
(Emphasis added)
The DCVC upon consideration of elaborate material placed before it observes that the Tahsildar on verification of records initially had rendered a categorical finding that the petitioner does not belong to Budaga Jangama caste and had rejected the caste certificate sought which was challenged before the DCVC and the Committee again on 12-04-2008 had affirmed the said rejection. It also observes that the burden of proving that the candidate or his parents or guardian belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe always on the person who claims to be so. After such detailed narration, it is the conclusion of the Committee that the petitioner does not belong to Budaga Jangama – Scheduled Caste but belongs to Byragi caste.
21. The aforesaid report which was a product of an inquiry conducted pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court was placed before the Apex Court upon which the Apex Court in terms of its order dated 19-01-2023, reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge the findings of the DCVC in the impugned report dated 27-10-2021 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, the challenge to the report before this Court.
22. The primary contention of challenge of the petitioner is that the DCVC has completely ignored the Kolar Gazetteer which clearly depicts persons belonging to Budaga Jangama caste in the Gazetteer of the year 1939. The Gazetteer is appended to the petition. According to the petitioner, the Gazetteer depicts persons of several castes and matastha’s in the District of Kolar. The Gazetteer insofar as it concerns the castes has a preamble which reads as follows:
“The Indian social organization consists of several castes and tribes. Though the castes originated due to the occupational distinctions, gradually they have developed separate identities. Later several sub-castes were formed within each caste. While there are certain restriction is on inter caste relations, there is co-existence among castes upto a limited periphery. Though there are some similarities among castes in terms of rituals, traditions, food habits and social ways of life, the castewise distinctions in customs have resulted in the complexity of caste system. Some of the castes living in the present geographical region of Kolar District could be the original settlers of this land, but the remaining many castes have settled here in course of time. So a mixture of languages and cultures are evident here. A study of castes helps to understand the immigration of various castes in ancient times and their divisions which evolved in later years. Due to the various changes occurred in the past independence period all castes are influenced by the modernization. So it is difficult to identify the specific feature and traditional characteristics of every caste. In the foregoing part of this chapter, a brief description is given of the social and cultural aspects of main castes of Kolar District.”
The author of the Gazetteer indicates that there are several Castes and Tribes in the District of Kolar which have gradually developed separate identity. A study of castes helped the author to understand the immigration of various castes in ancient times and their divisions which evolved in later years. Due to various changes occurred in the post independence period all castes are said to have been influenced by modernization. The author gives a brief description of social and cultural aspects of main castes of Kolar District. The narration contains several castes among which Budaga Jangama caste also finds its narration and the narration insofar as Budaga Jangama is concerned reads as follows:
“Budaga Jangama: Those who present a folk performance art called Bura Katha along with an instrument called ‘Budaga’ (a small drum made of leather) are known as Budaga Jangamas. Originally they are Telugu speaking people. They are also known by names such as Mala sanyasi, Bairagi etc. in different parts of the State. They go from house to house and perform Hagalu Vesha as a profession to earn their livelihood. Being nomadic they are found all over the district. Recently they are showing a trend of settling in convenient places. They have clan panchayat to settle disputes. They do not have priestly classes, neither dowry. But, the bride-price is prevalent among them. They have a distinct budaya language without script and have 67 Bedagus which help them to identify each other. They bury the dead.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The sheet anchor of the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the Kolar Gazetteer and the observations therein are with regard to persons or existence of persons belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. This cannot be taken note of as a foundation or basis to withstand, the stand of the petitioner, that he belongs to Budaga Jangama caste. The aforesaid Gazetteer is of the year 1939 which was a Pre-Republic era. On the nation being governed by the Constitution, constitutional provisions qua Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, that are material require to be noticed. Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India read as follows:
“341. Scheduled Castes.—(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.
342. Scheduled Tribes.—(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”
Article 341 empowers the President of India in respect of any State or Union territory and where it is a State, after consultation, specify castes, races or tribes or parts or groups within castes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory as the case may be. The Constitution (Schedule Castes) Order 1950 was notified immediately thereafter. As noticed herein above, it did not contain the caste, Budaga Jangama. In the year 1956 an amendment Act comes to be promulgated viz., Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes List (Amendment) Order, 1956. It is here that the caste of Budaga Jangama finds its place in three Districts of Gulbarga, Raichur and Bidar which come to be recognized after States Reorganization happens carving out erstwhile Mysore State to include different areas to come within the ambit of the new State of Karnataka. Therefore, the order of the year 1956 does recognize persons of Budaga Jangama caste in the State of Karnataka but at three places. In the year 1976 owing to migration the area restriction comes to be removed. Therefore, persons belonging to Budaga Jangama caste could be in any part of the State as migrants could be spread over despite their presence initially in those three Districts in the entire State of Karnataka.
23. Reliance placed on the Kolar Gazetteer, after the nation being governed by the Constitution, and rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes being determined under the Constitution or the constitutional orders so promulgated from time to time is misplaced, and too trivial a defence for the petitioner who contested elections on a caste certificate that was at all times false. Reference being made to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MILIND AND OTHERS (2001) 1 SCC 4 [LQ/SC/2000/1837 ;] becomes apposite. The Apex Court in the case of MILIND has held as follows:
“12. Plain language and clear terms of these articles show (1) the President under clause (1) of the said articles may with respect to any State or Union Territory and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor, by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within the castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory as the case may be; (2) under clause (2) of the said articles, a notification issued under clause (1) cannot be varied by any subsequent notification except by law made by Parliament. In other words, Parliament alone is competent by law to include in or exclude a caste/tribe from the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in notifications issued under clause (1) of the said articles. In including castes and tribes in Presidential Orders, the President is authorised to limit the notification to parts or groups within the caste or tribe depending on the educational and social backwardness. It is permissible that only parts or groups within them be specified and further to specify castes or tribes thereof in relation to parts of the State and not to the entire State on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so having regard to social and educational backwardness. The States had opportunity to present their views through Governors when consulted by the President in relation to castes or tribes, parts or groups within them either in relation to the entire State or parts of State. It appears that the object of clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 was to keep away disputes touching whether a caste/tribe is a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe or not for the purpose of the Constitution. Whether a particular caste or a tribe is Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be, within the meaning of the entries contained in the Presidential Orders issued under clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342, is to be determined looking to them as they are. Clause (2) of the said articles does not permit any one to seek modification of the said orders by leading evidence that the caste/Tribe (A) alone is mentioned in the Order but caste/Tribe (B) is also a part of caste/Tribe (A) and as such caste/Tribe (B) should be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe as the case may be. It is only Parliament that is competent to amend the Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. As can be seen from the entries in the schedules pertaining to each State whenever one caste/tribe has another name it is so mentioned in the brackets after it in the schedules. In this view it serves no purpose to look at gazetteers or glossaries for establishing that a particular caste/tribe is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of Constitution, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such in the Presidential Orders. Orders once issued under clause (1) of the said articles, cannot be varied by subsequent order or notification even by the President except by law made by Parliament. Hence it is not possible to say that State Governments or any other authority or courts or Tribunals are vested with any power to modify or vary the said Orders. If that be so, no inquiry is permissible and no evidence can be let in for establishing that a particular caste or part or group within tribes or tribe is included in Presidential Order if they are not expressly included in the Orders. Since any exercise or attempt to amend the Presidential Order except as provided in clause (2) of Articles 341 and 342 would be futile, holding any inquiry or letting in any evidence in that regard is neither permissible nor useful.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court clearly holds that once entries in the schedules pertaining to each State whenever one caste/tribe has another name in the brackets after it depicted in the schedules to the said constitutional orders issued under Articles 341 and 342, it would serve no purpose to look into the Gazetteers or glossaries for establishing that a particular caste/tribe is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of Constitution even though it is not specifically mentioned as such in the Presidential orders. Though the Presidential orders in the case at hand does make a mention with regard to Budaga Jangama caste, to be a Scheduled Caste, placing reliance upon a Gazetteer to demonstrate that the District did contain Budaga Jangama caste would run counter to the findings of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MILIND. Therefore, I decline to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be declared to be a Budaga Jangama emerging from Kolar District on the strength of the Gazetteer, unless there are other documents in his favour to demonstrate that he did belong to the said caste notwithstanding the area and its presence being declared by the constitutional order of the year 1956.
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DCVC:
24. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the year 2008 for the first time when he was aged about 30 years applies for issuance of a caste certificate declaring him to be belonging to Budaga Jangama – Scheduled Caste. This comes to be rejected. The order of rejection is quoted hereinabove. The order of rejection was on the ground that the Revenue Inspector had conducted an inquiry and found that there was no evidence to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner depicting him to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste as the inquiry did not find any person of the said caste in Kolar District. It was not only on that basis the endorsement was issued but even on the ground that there were no documents produced by the petitioner. This was challenged by the petitioner before the DCVC and the DCVC affirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar rejecting issuance of caste certificate in terms of its order dated 12-04-2008. These two orders – one by the Tahsildar and another by the DCVC have become final. The petitioner did not choose to challenge them but applies for a fresh caste certificate. Therefore, the first round of rejection has become final. It is the fresh application and its aftermath that has gone on, before the Courts till date.
25. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6 has placed on record certain documents pertaining to the petitioner. The documents are the register of admission in the school in which the petitioner himself claims to have studied of the year 1969-70 and maintained by the Department of Education, Government of Karnataka. At Sl.No.16 is the petitioner whose date of birth is 26-08-1978 and the religion and caste is indicated as Byragi. It is not only the petitioner but there are several students in the school who were all belonging to Byragi caste. The 2nd document is the transfer certificate of the petitioner which also depicts him to be Hindu – Byragi. Several sale deeds are placed on record which all of the relatives of the petitioner which depict that they belong to Jangali – Byragi caste. In no document the petitioner or his relatives have described themselves to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. In the year 2012, the petitioner files a civil suit in O.S.No.107 of 2012 seeking the following prayer:
“WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs:
(a) To declare that the plaintiffs caste is “Hindu Budaga Jangam” and not as Bhairaghi.
(b) To grant consequential relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants and their subordinate officers concerned to rectify the caste of the plaintiffs in their school records as “HINDU BUDAGA JANGAMA” in place of BHAIRAGHI.
(c) To grant of costs of the suit and such other relief as relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to be circumstance of the case in the ends of justice and equity.”
(Emphasis added)
The prayer of the petitioner in the civil suit is for a declaration that his caste is Hindu Budaga Jangama and not Byragi and a consequential mandatory injunction is sought directing the defendants and their subordinate officers to rectify the caste of the plaintiff in the school records as Hindu Budaga Jangama in place of Byragi. The said suit comes to be dismissed in terms of the order of the civil Court dated 27-09-2013. The issues framed in the said suit are as follows:-
“4. Based on the above said pleadings the following issues were came to be framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is belonged to the caste of Budaga Jangam
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the school authority have wrongly mentioned his caste as Bairaghi
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought by them (Note: Amended as per order on I.A.No.8 – order dated 16-03-2013)
5. What decree or order”
(Emphasis added)
The first issue concerns whether the plaintiff proves that he belongs to Budaga Jangama caste. It is held in the negative after recording elaborate evidence. The petitioner then files an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.303 of 2013. The First Appellate Court rejects the appeal on the ground that the plaintiffs – petitioner along with another Mr. Gangareddy have not made out any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the finding against the petitioner even in the civil suit is that the petitioner does not belong to Budaga Jangama caste. The findings in O.S.No.107 of 2012 were on the basis of evidence before the civil Court. The petitioner has not carried the orders passed against him by civil courts any further. This is the second of the proceedings that has become final in which the findings are against the petitioner - the first being the order of the Tahsildar and the order of the DCVC and the second is the findings in the civil Court and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.303 of 2013. Therefore, the petitioner has not produced any document to demonstrate that he belongs to Budaga Jangama caste, on the contrary, there are plethora of documents which clearly depict that the petitioner belongs to Byragi caste. Therefore, no fault can be found with the findings of the DCVC in rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he be declared as a person belonging to Budaga Jangama – a Scheduled Caste.
26. Insofar as the evidence that is let in by the petitioner before the DCVC is concerned, notwithstanding the fact that all the persons who have deposed in favour of the petitioner belonged to the family of the petitioner their evidence is that the customs and practices that they have been following for ages in Kolar District depict them to be belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. It is an admitted fact that none of the relatives of the petitioner who have deposed before the DCVC have secured any caste certificate as belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. It is for the first time before the DCVC all of them in unison would depose that they belong to Budaga Jangama caste when they were also known as Byragi, Jangali, Sanyasi etc. It is on that basis evidence is let in, which in effect is that they want those castes are also to be known as Budaga Jangama. The said contention cannot even be accepted, as the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of MILIND has clearly held that depiction of caste and issuance of caste certificate on the basis of synonyms is contrary to the Constitution.
27. The Constitution Bench holds that the castes that can be declared to be Scheduled Castes are the ones that are declared by the constitutional orders issued from time to time by the Parliament and the State Government has no jurisdiction to declare any person as belonging to Scheduled Caste on the basis of synonyms or those persons being called by certain other names in the area. The claim of the petitioner is akin to what is frowned upon by the Constitution Bench supra, as the petitioner places reliance upon a Government order issued on 12-01-2016 by the State Government on the basis of available census, avocation, attire and report of two persons. In the said list Budaga Jangama finds a place in Annexure-I in terms of A.J.Sadashiva Commission Report and depicts their avocation to be Hagalu Vesha, Burrakathe, Byragivesha among other things.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is that even Byragis’ are to be considered as Scheduled Caste. If this submission is accepted, it would run undoubtedly contrary to what the Apex Court has held in the case of MILIND supra.
28. In conclusion the DCVC holds that there are no documents produced by the petitioner to demonstrate that he belongs to Budaga Jangama caste. It also considered the evidence let in by several relatives of the petitioner, inspected school records and has rejected the claim that the petitioner belongs to Budaga Jangama caste on the ground that the customs, food habits and the dress that they wear or the marriage and death ceremonies that they undertake are not akin to what Budaga Jangama community people would undertake. Therefore, no fault can be found with the reasons rendered by the DCVC as it is in tune with what the Apex Court has time and again held that on the basis of synonyms or on the basis of different names being called as one particular caste, a declaration cannot be made that one belongs to Scheduled Caste unless the Parliament itself says so.
29. A perusal at the entire documents appended to the writ petition and the statement of objections would all indicate that the petitioner and his relatives are either Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi, Hagalu Veshadari and Mala Sanyasi, all of which find a mention in the Kolar Gazetteer which cannot be looked into in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MILIND as accepting such submission would be accepting that Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi, Hagalu Veshadari and Mala Sanyasi are also Scheduled Caste belonging to Budaga Jangama caste which power this Court does not have nor the State Government has.
30. If the Parliament does not declare that all these persons belonging to aforesaid castes, are belonging to Scheduled Caste - Budaga Jangama, by an edict of this Court, a declaration that the petitioner belongs to Budaga Jangama caste cannot be done. More so, in the light of the fact that no documents being placed on record to show that at any point in time, the petitioner or his relatives had ever been issued a caste certificate depicting him or them as belonging to Scheduled Caste - Budaga Jangama caste. Except the one that is allegedly issued on 03-04-2012 in favour of the petitioner, there is no other document produced by the petitioner to depict him to be belonging to Budaga Jangama – Scheduled Caste. The order of the DCVC does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court as it is rendered on reasons that are cogent. It is clear case that the petitioner contested the election on a caste certificate, which was on the face of it false and becomes a law maker even, by stealing away a constituency that was meant to a person genuinely belonging to a scheduled caste. It is this act that fringes on the borders of fraud on the Constitution. Therefore, action against the petitioner must ensue, which I leave it open to the State to initiate, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, in accordance with law.
31. In the result, finding no merit in the petition, the petition would necessarily meet its rejection and it is accordingly rejected.
